Making collaboration work: an evaluation of marine protected area planning processes on Canada’s Pacific Coast

(1)

Making collaboration work: An evaluation of marine protected area planning processes on Canada’s Pacific Coast

by Philip Akins

Bachelor of Science, Geography, University of Victoria, 2002 Master of Arts, International Affairs, Carleton University, 2005

A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

in the Department of Geography

(2)

Supervisory Committee

Making collaboration work: An evaluation of marine protected area planning processes on Canada’s Pacific Coast

by Philip Akins

Bachelor of Science, Geography, University of Victoria, 2002 Master of Arts, International Affairs, Carleton University, 2005

Supervisory Committee

Dr. Rosaline Canessa, Department of Geography, University of Victoria Supervisor

Dr. Grant Murray, Department of Geography, University of Victoria, and Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University

Departmental member

Dr. Michelle Lee-Moore, Department of Geography, University of Victoria Departmental member

Dr. Michael Webb, Department of Political Science, University of Victoria Outside member

(3)

Abstract

It is widely agreed that marine protected areas (MPAs), which can provide long-term protection to marine ecosystems of high ecological, economic, social and cultural value, will only be successful if they are designed and implemented with the involvement and support of stakeholders and other key actors. Putting a collaborative approach into practice is not easy, though. Appropriate governance structures, which formalize and facilitate information sharing, consensus building, and decision making are necessary, but insufficient. Also needed is a shared interest on the part of all groups – beginning with MPA agencies themselves – to work together, notwithstanding the often considerable investments of time, effort and material resources that are required. Perhaps most fundamentally, effective collaboration depends on trust, and strong interpersonal relationships.

Consistent with a global trend in favour of more inclusive and participatory approaches to protected area planning and management, Canada’s federal government has set out to develop a national system of MPAs in cooperation with a broad array of interest groups, including marine resource users and other stakeholders; government actors with responsibilities and authorities for oceans activities that relate to the objectives of MPAs; and Aboriginal communities and

organizations within whose territories MPAs are situated. The overarching goal of the study was to understand the extent to which federal MPAs in British Columbia (BC), Canada, are

established collaboratively, and what is required to overcome obstacles to successful

collaboration. This goal was pursued through an in-depth investigation of two MPA planning processes in BC: the proposed Race Rocks MPA, at the southern tip of Vancouver Island; and the Gwaii Haanas National Marine Conservation Area Reserve and Haida Heritage Site, in the Haida Gwaii archipelago. Data for the study was collected through semi-structured interviews; documentary research; and a participant questionnaire.

The study found that, while MPA agencies engaged with outside parties in a variety of ways to plan Race Rocks and Gwaii Haanas, these processes fell short of expectations for genuine collaboration in a number of respects. In the case of Race Rocks, this has resulted in the failure (for a second time) to designate the MPA. The dissertation illuminates the challenges and

(4)

List of Tables

Table 1 – Elements for successful collaboration, and corresponding research questions. ... 17

Table 2 – The three core programs of Canada’s Federal MPA system ... 19

Table 3 – Participant recruitment ... 31

Table 4 – Data collection: interviews and questionnaires ... 33

Table 5 – Case studies: key features ... 46

Table 6 – Interest groups identified for inclusion on the GHMAC. ... 105

Table 7 – Interest groups identified for inclusion on RRPAB. ... 106

Table 8 – “Why we said yes to joining this committee” – GHMAC meeting #1 ... 109

(7)

List of Figures

Figure 1 – Hierarchical representations of stakeholder participation in decision making ... 9

Figure 2 – May’s non-hierarchical Star of Participation: five “participation stances” ... 9

Figure 3 – Interconnected elements for effective collaboration ... 18

Figure 4 – Canada’s progress towards 2020 MPA target. ... 20

Figure 5 – Study sites and other federal MPAs in BC ... 27

Figure 6 – Gwaii Haanas NMCA Reserve and Haida Heritage Site ... 49

Figure 7 – Race Rocks MPA Area of Interest ... 51

Figure 8 – Management decision making through the Archipelago Management Board ... 60

Figure 9 – Study sites ... 102

Figure 10 – Questionnaire results: stakeholder views on collaborative approach to MPA planning and management ... 109

Figure 11 – Questionnaire results: support for marine protection at Race Rocks and Gwaii Haanas ... 111

(8)

Abbreviations

AMB Archipelago Management Board (Gwaii Haanas) BC British Columbia

CHN Council of the Haida Nation (the elected government of the Haida Nation) CPAWS Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society

DFO Fisheries and Oceans Canada (lead agency at Race Rocks; key partner in Gwaii Haanas)

ECC Environment and Climate Change Canada

ER Ecological Reserve (Provincial protected area designation) GHMAC Gwaii Haanas interim Marine Advisory Committee

GoC Government of Canada

IMP Interim Management Plan (Gwaii Haanas) MPA Marine Protected Area

NMCA National Marine Conservation Area

PC Parks Canada (lead agency at Gwaii Haanas) RRPAB Race Rocks Public Advisory Board

ToR Terms of Reference TC Transport Canada

(9)

Chapter 1 Introduction

1 Overview of the problem and research contribution: putting collaboration into

practice

As a result of over-fishing, land-based pollution, climate change and other factors, the deterioration of marine ecosystems and accompanying social, cultural and economic impacts are growing global concerns (Canessa & Dearden, 2016; Cinner, Daw, & McClanahan, 2009; Ricketts & Hildebrand, 2011). Studies have shown that marine protected areas (MPAs) can help address both of these issues, effectively protecting habitats and organisms while delivering economic and other social benefits (Caselle, Rassweiler, Hamilton, & Warner, 2015; Leisher, van Beukering, & Scherl, 2007). The World Conservation Union (IUCN) defines an MPA generically as “any area of intertidal or subtidal terrain, together with its overlying water and associated flora, fauna, historical, or cultural features, which has been reserved by law or other effective means to protect part or all of the enclosed environment” (Kelleher & Kenchington, 1992, p. 7). Specifically, MPA designations vary widely according to their purpose, legal status, governance framework, and management approach.

Oceans have immense spiritual, cultural, recreational, subsistence, and commercial value, and they are used in many different ways. MPAs will align well with the interests and objectives of some – perhaps even most – resource users and interest groups, but by imposing new

restrictions or prohibitions on current and future activities, disagreement, conflict and opposition are inevitable. The commercial fishing industry on Canada’s Pacific coast, for example, has stated that it has no objection to temporary fishery closures for conservation purposes; but the industry was opposed to a new National Marine Conservation Areas Act, which came into force in 2002, because it threatened to close areas to harvesting in perpetuity without any requirement to compensate fishermen for their economic losses (Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, 2001a). To design MPAs that advance social and economic as well as ecological objectives, MPA agencies need to understand and address the needs and perspectives of a diversity of stakeholders, including commercial, recreational and subsistence resource harvesters, tourism operators, recreationists, educators, and researchers. In many countries, furthermore, oceans governance – “the processes and institutions by which coastal and ocean areas are managed”

(10)

(Alley & Topelko, 2007, p. 2) – are a tangled web of overlapping authorities, mandates, rights and responsibilities (Bicego, 2003; Borrini-Feyerabend, Farvar, Renard, Pimbert, & Kothari, 2007; Canada, 2002; P. Jones, Qiu, & De Santo, 2011a). To integrate MPAs into broader

governance frameworks, therefore, MPA agencies must also work closely with other government organizations, and with indigenous groups that may have unique rights respecting the use and management of marine areas.

There is little dispute in the MPA and marine planning literature that all interested parties need to be involved in MPA decision making, and a clear preference has emerged in the

literature for greater collaboration to ensure the success of these conservation tools (Dickinson, Rutherford, & Gunton, 2010; Jentoft, van Son, & Bjørkan, 2007; P. Jones, De Santo, Qiu, & Vestergaard, 2013; Pomeroy & Douvere, 2008). There is no single answer to how this can best be achieved, however, and what ‘collaborative’ MPA planning and management looks like in practice varies widely (Dickinson et al., 2010; Jentoft, 2000). It is also well understood that actually doing collaboration is difficult; that it incurs costs as well as benefits; and that it introduces risks as well as opportunities (Bodin & Crona, 2009; Daniels & Walker, 1996; Fennell, Plummer, & Marschke, 2008; Frame, Gunton, & Day, 2004; Jentoft, 2000; Yaffee & Wondolleck, 2003). Collaborative processes “are extremely difficult to bring off, frustrating and demanding to participate in, often lengthy and expensive for their members, and they can easily fail” (William Ruckelshaus in Sigurdson, Stuart, & Bratty, 2011, p. 29). Getting collaboration wrong has consequences, moreover (P. Jones et al., 2011a; Yaffee & Wondolleck, 2003). “Even proponents are coming to realize that collaborative approaches to natural resource management can but do not always work and that at times failure comes at a heavy cost of time and effort (and, perhaps more significantly, in social capital consumed rather than built)” (Conley & Moote, 2003, pp. 373–374).

Putting a collaborative approach into practice means opening decision-making processes up to more actors; taking into account more issues, interests and perspectives; and undertaking complex negotiations and trade-offs where unilateral decisions would once have sufficed (Huppé, Creech, & Knoblauch, 2012). This requires structures and processes for people and organizations to come together to exchange information, deliberate, problem solve, and work towards consensus decisions. Just as importantly, it requires a willingness and an ability on the part of all interested parties to do so. Existing scholarship indicates that more attention needs to

(11)

be paid not just to the structural elements of collaboration, therefore, but also to its social and relational dimensions, including the incentives that stakeholders have to participate in

collaborative planning; the personalities and interpersonal skills of those involved (conveners and participants); and the importance of mutual understanding and trust for effective

collaboration (Bodin & Crona, 2009; P. Jones et al., 2011a; Wondolleck & Yaffee, 2000). Much has been written on the principles of protected area governance, in which the importance of intergovernmental cooperation, stakeholder participation, and other elements of collaborative decision making are emphasized (Abrams, Borrini-Feyerabend, Gardner, & Heylings, 2003; Barry, 2003; Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2013; Christie & White, 2007; Dickinson et al., 2010; Hedley & Willison, 2007; Kearney, Berkes, Charles, Pinkerton, & Wiber, 2007; Lockwood, 2009; Pomeroy, Parks, & Watson, 2004). These principles, in turn, have been adopted by government agencies in the policies and governance arrangements they put in place for MPA planning and management, and there are numerous case studies from around the world in which descriptions of these is given (see for example Blue Earth Consultants, 2012; Anthony Charles & Wilson, 2009; Day & Dobbs, 2013; De la Cruz Modino & Pascual-Fernández, 2013; Fox et al., 2013; Gaymer et al., 2014; Gleason et al., 2013; Heck & Dearden, 2012; Horigue, Aliño, White, & Pressey, 2012; Jessen et al., 2011; P. Jones, Qiu, & De Santo, 2011b; Leroy, Dobell, Dorcey, & Tansey, 2003). However, there have been few published case studies that look beyond the objective details of collaborative arrangements such as stakeholder advisory bodies and cooperative management boards, to how collaboration actually unfolded in these cases; nor, crucially, have many studies investigated how cases of collaborative MPA planning were

experienced and judged by the stakeholders and other non-state actors involved, which is needed to provide a diversity of perspectives on how collaboration is (and should be) implemented (Dalton, 2006). These are gaps that this study will help to fill with an investigation of two recent MPA planning processes in British Columbia, Canada.

Since enacting the Oceans Act in 1996, collaboration has been a consistent theme of the Government of Canada’s stated approach to oceans management (N. A. Davis, 2011; Rutherford, Dickinson, & Gunton, 2010). With respect to MPAs, specifically, the importance of

collaboration is articulated prominently in the 2005 Federal MPA Strategy, which emphasizes the need for governments to work together, with Aboriginal groups, and with resource users and other stakeholders to establish MPAs through a “cooperative and collaborative approach”

(12)

(Canada, 2005b, p. 3). Due in part to difficulties associated with putting this approach into practice, however – conflicting stakeholder interests; unresolved Aboriginal rights and territorial claims; and inconsistent intergovernmental cooperation have all been cited as challenges – Canada’s progress towards a comprehensive MPA system has been slow (Canada, 2005b; CPAWS, 2014; Guénette & Alder, 2007; OAG, 2012). Along with other signatories to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the Government of Canada (GoC) has made

repeated commitments to increase the amount of its territorial waters within MPAs. However, it fell far short of a goal, set in 2002, to have a completed system of MPAs in place by 2012 (Canada, 2011; IUCN, 2003), and seems unlikely to meet the next CBD target, set in 2010, to have “at least” 10% of coastal and marine areas effectively protected by 2020(Canada, 2011, p. 6) (Canada, 2011, p. 6, 2016; CBD, 2010). Both Canada’s clear articulation of a collaborative approach, which is in line with a global trajectory in the direction of increasingly inclusive and participatory protected area governance, as well as the difficulties it has encountered putting this approach into practice, makes the Canadian experience well-suited to research that is aimed at better understanding the challenges of collaboration for MPA planning and management, and what is required to make it work well.

2 Research Goal and Questions

The overarching goal of study is:

To understand the extent to which federal MPAs in British Columbia, Canada, are established collaboratively, and what is required to overcome obstacles to successful collaboration.

With this goal in mind, three research questions were set out to guide investigations of two recent MPA planning processes on Canada’s Pacific coast: the Gwaii Haanas National Marine Conservation Area Reserve (NMCA) and Haida Heritage Site, in the Haida Gwaii archipelago; and the proposed Race Rocks MPA, at the southern tip of Vancouver Island (see Figure 5, p. 27). The research questions are:

1. In line with the collaborative approach articulated in policy and legislation, how were stakeholders, First Nations and government organizations included in decision making at these sites, and what were the key challenges and shortcomings identified by those involved?

(13)

2. What are the interests and expectations that motivate participation in multi-stakeholder planning; and, conversely, what barriers or disincentives may discourage it?

3. What is the role of interpersonal relationships for successful collaboration, and how can relationships be strengthened (or, conversely, weakened) through MPA planning?

By answering these questions, the expectation is that the study will enhance understanding of issues and challenges related not just to the two cases, but to collaborative MPA planning more broadly. Likewise, it sets out to discover and highlight lessons and achievements from the cases that can help to improve the implementation of collaborative approaches elsewhere in BC, Canada, and beyond.

The remainder of this chapter sets out the ideas and thinking that guided the study. Section 3 reviews the literature from which the key concepts and theoretical framework were drawn. Section 4 provides a background to the research context, and Section 5 describes the research process, including the case study approach, site selection, recruitment, and data collection and analysis. Section 6 summarizes the study’s intended contribution to current scholarship, and considers its limitations. The organization for the remainder of the dissertation is outlined in Section 7.

3 Key concepts and theoretical approach

The research questions are directed at understanding the extent to which federal MPAs in BC are established collaboratively, and what is required to overcome obstacles to successful

collaboration. These questions were informed by a review of the literature on protected area governance, collaborative resource management, and participatory decision making, and it is to these areas of scholarship that the study will make its contributions. A brief review of key concepts drawn from this literature is given below.

3.1 Key concepts

3.1.1 Collaborative governance and management

“[It is] the shared responsibility of governments, Aboriginal groups, coastal

communities, industry and others to support the sustainability of our marine resources. … The concept of consultation and collaboration is essential to the development and implementation of the federal marine protected areas network and its individual

(14)

components – its success depends on how well various interests are able to work together.”

– Canada’s Federal MPA Strategy (Canada, 2005b, pp. 10–11)

To speak about collaboration is to speak, in the first instance, about governance. Lockwood (2010, p. 754) defines protected area governance as “the structures, processes and traditions that determine how power and responsibilities are exercised, how decisions are taken, and how stakeholders have their say.” Although governance is not synonymous with management, which is about actually making and implementing decisions, the two concepts are commonly used interchangeably or in combination (Béné & Neiland, 2006; Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2013; Kearney et al., 2007; Robinson & Berkes, 2011). Thus, “collaborative governance” is “a governing arrangement where one or more public agencies directly engage non-state

stakeholders in a collective decision-making process that is formal, consensus-oriented, and deliberative” (Ansell & Gash, 2008, p. 2). When considering what Canada’s MPA agencies mean by ‘working together’ with outside parties, the distinction between governance and management should be kept in mind: the one refers to the structures and processes by which collaboration is implemented; the other to the broader framework of authorities, responsibilities and rights within which those structures and processes are established.

While in some protected areas decisions are made primarily by governments (top down governance), and local groups or communities take the lead role in others (bottom up), a growing number of governance models occupy an expansive middle ground of collaborative decision making, in which stakeholder participation is recognized as an essential element. Ansell and Gash’s definition of collaborative governance, above, leaves considerable room for variation in practice, notably with respect to who is included in a collaborative forum (the ‘non-state

stakeholders’), and the degree to which control over process and outcomes (i.e., decisions) is shared. Lead agencies can engage in deliberation and consensus-building, but who sets the agenda, and who makes the final decisions? What is the implication when consensus is not achieved? Stakeholder participation itself is often understood in terms of a spectrum, or

continuum, of involvement and control. At one end, stakeholders are informed about plans and decisions but have little if any role in shaping them (i.e., little collaboration); at the other, significant control and responsibility for decision making is delegated to citizen-led bodies (i.e., a high degree of collaboration). The classic conceptualization of this spectrum is Arnstein’s

(15)

Ladder of Citizen Participation, which was published in 1969 and has seen many adaptations (Figure 1). An alternative to this conceptualization is May’s five-pointed star (Figure 2), which approximates the different levels found in hierarchical representations, but “unlike the ladder, there is no ‘natural’ way to orientate the star” (May, 2006, p. 312). May’s point is that the

appropriate level of stakeholder engagement may not always be the most engagement (the ladder formulation is unnecessarily ideological); it depends, rather, on the needs at hand and the

interests of outside parties. For example, MPA implementation processes typically proceed through three principle stages: (1) site selection; (2) pre-designation planning (the primary focus of this study); and, (3) post-designation planning and management (Canada, 2011; DFO, 2009b). Depending on the planning stage, the tasks at hand, and the stakeholders involved, DFO’s MPA Practitioner’s Guide proposes a variety of structures, processes and tools for public involvement, including open houses and newsletters, for information sharing and education; focus groups, for gathering feedback; advisory groups and bilateral meetings, for higher levels of involvement; and, at the far end of the scale, “joint planning” arrangements (DFO, 2009b, p. 16). Whereas the 2005 Federal MPA Strategy recognizes all of these as mechanisms “to improve collaboration and cooperation” (Canada, 2005b, p. 11), it is important to keep in mind that they do not all amount to truly collaborative decision making. Although the meaning of ‘true’ collaboration is to some extent subjective, since it can vary according to the perspectives and expectations of those involved, it is generally understood that collaboration entails more than consultation (as in information-sharing), and that any collaborative process will enable participants to have a real impact on decisions (Kessler, 2004; Thompson, Jago, Fernandes, & Day, 2005).

According to Kearney et al. (2007, p. 82),“the concept of collaboration only makes sense if it is accompanied by increasing decision-making powers for a country’s citizens.” Common to many definitions of co-management, in particular, is the notion that some amount of authority and responsibility should be delegated from governments to local management bodies (Carlsson & Berkes, 2005; Christie & White, 2007). “Without power-sharing co-management is not real, only symbolic” (Jentoft, 2000, p. 529). Co-management is a notoriously imprecise term, though (the 'co-' is more often than not left undefined), and ‘true’ co-management is complicated in Canada by a governance context in which government ministers (of whom there may be several with overlapping jurisdictions within the boundaries of an MPA; see below) cannot legally

(16)

delegate their decision making authority to outside parties.1_{This means that even in a highly} participatory (inclusive, deliberative, consensus-seeking) process, stakeholders can have at most an advisory role in decision making. This is an issue of more significance in relation to

Government-First Nations cooperation, though, in which a Minister’s authority to take unilateral decisions may well be contested. This is because most First Nations in BC have never ceded control of their territory to the Crown (through historical or modern treaties), and may continue to assert sovereignty and decision-making authority within those territories (Gladu et al., 2003; von der Porten, Lepofsky, McGregor, & Silver, 2016; P. B. Wood & Rossiter, 2011). First Nations “see themselves as full and equal participants in the decision-making process” (Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, 2001), and will not accept co-management arrangements in which, like stakeholders, they are accorded merely an advisory role. The rationale for the study’s first research question (above on page 4), therefore, is to draw on the views of those directly involved in the designation processes for Gwaii Haanas and Race Rocks, including stakeholders and First Nations, to understand how collaboration was implemented and experienced in this governance context.

Gwaii Haanas, it should be noted, is already a well-documented and widely celebrated example of collaborative Government-First Nations protected area management

(Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2013; R. Jones, Rigg, & Pinkerton, 2016; Sloan, 2014; Thomlinson & Crouch, 2012). In 1993 the Gwaii Haanas Archipelago Management Board (AMB) was established by Parks Canada and the Council of the Haida Nation (CHN) to oversee the management of the Gwaii Haanas National Park Reserve and Haida Heritage Site. One of the reasons this site was selected as a case study is that, in 2010, it underwent an important change. The creation the Gwaii Haanas National Marine Conservation Area Reserve extended the site – and the mandate of the AMB – into the considerably more complex (from a governance perspective) marine environment. This has introduced new challenges for cooperative management that have not yet been fully examined.

1_{The relates to the principle ‘delegatus non potest delegare’ (no delegated powers can be further delegated), or}

the anti-fettering doctrine, which prohibits a Minister from entering into any contract that could prevent him/her from fulfilling his/her statutory obligations. “A Minister cannot, by agreement, deprive himself of a power which is committed to him to be exercised from time to time as occasion may require in the public interest, or validly covenant to refrain from the use of that power when it may be requisite, or expedient in his discretion, upon grounds of public policy, to execute it” (The King v. Dominion of Canada Postage Stamp Vending Co. Ltd., 1930).

(17)

Figure 1 – Hierarchical representations of stakeholder participation in decision making

Figure 2 – May’s non-hierarchical Star of Participation: five “participation stances”

3.1.2 Multi-stakeholder planning: motivating interests, barriers or disincentives, and shared commitments to collaboration

(18)

In their definition of collaborative governance (see above), Ansell and Gash (2008) emphasize six criteria for a collaborative forum: (1) it is initiated by a public institution; (2) participants include non-state actors; (3) participants engage directly in decision making and are not merely ‘consulted’; (4) the forum is formally organized and meets collectively; (5) the forum aims to make decisions by consensus; and (6) the focus of collaboration is on public policy or public management. Depending on how they are implemented (and on how one interprets Ansell and Gash’s third criteria), two of the forums used or contemplated by lead agencies in Gwaii Haanas and Race Rocks could meet this definition.2_{The first is Government/First Nations} management boards, which formalize joint decision making between representatives of

government and First Nations organizations. As the name implies, though, these are exclusive of resource users and other stakeholders. The second, more inclusive structure is multi-stakeholder advisory bodies, which are designed to facilitate deliberation and consensus building among a small group representing all key interest groups. Advisory bodies have been used in the

designation processes for all of Canada’s MPAs, including Gwaii Haanas and Race Rocks, and are a common tool for collaborative MPA planning and management (post-designation) in many other parts of the world as well. For this reason, and as the only structures aimed at bringing all groups together around the same table, these bodies merit close attention and will be a focus of this dissertation.

Advisory bodies correspond with Gunton et al.’s (2010, p. 98) definition of collaborative planning, which “engages stakeholders in an interactive dialogue that incorporates stakeholders’ views in management decisions by seeking stakeholder agreement and endorsement … [and] is emerging as the preferred model of participation” for resource and environmental planning. Advocates believe that multi-stakeholder processes can produce better decisions than those produced by experts alone; deepen stakeholder’s mutual understanding of complex issues and their own diverse perspectives; resolve stakeholder conflicts; and build trust (Frame et al., 2004; Gunton et al., 2010; Kessler, 2004; Pomeroy & Douvere, 2008). Putting a multi-stakeholder advisory body in place is a necessary but insufficient condition for effective collaborative planning, though. What matters, ultimately, is whether all parties actually want to take part in

2_{The lead agencies engaged outside parties in a variety of other forums, too, such as bilateral consultations and}

community information sessions. These contribute to an overall ‘collaborative approach’ but do not meet definitions of collaborative governance or planning in the literature.

(19)

these forums, and to do so with the commitment needed for a deliberative and consensus-based process to work well. “Given the largely voluntary nature of participation, it is critical to understand the incentives that stakeholders have to engage in collaborative governance and the factors that shape those incentives” (Ansell & Gash, 2008, p. 10). This study’s second research question targets the factors that motivated or, conversely, discouraged participation in the multi-stakeholder advisory bodies put in place in Race Rocks and Gwaii Haanas.

There is no guarantee that outside parties will participate in a planning process simply because they are invited to do so, and the reluctance of stakeholders to get involved has been cited as one of the main challenges to implementing collaborative MPA planning (K. Davis et al., 2014; Manwaring & Nutter, 2014). The literature points to a number of explanations for this, including a lack of faith in government agencies; a lack of capacity; and the availability of preferable alternatives to the multi-stakeholder forum. The principal normative argument in favour of a collaborative approach is that it gives a say to those who will be directly affected by decisions, which corresponds with the norms of a democratic society and should lead to

decisions that more accurately reflect stakeholder needs and values (Abrams et al., 2003;

Kessler, 2004; Lockwood, 2009; White et al., 2005). Stakeholders can be skeptical, though, that government agencies will actually incorporate the input from an advisory body into decisions in a meaningful way. In practice (sometimes by design), “advisory committees are often far

removed from actual decision making” (Ansell & Gash, 2008, p. 4). Participating in collaborative planning is not cost-free, moreover. It can be very time-consuming, and will usually involve material costs. Some prospective participants may not have the capacity to get involved, or they may not believe that the benefits of doing so will outweigh the costs (Goetz, 2004; Kessler, 2004; London, 1995; Sievanen et al., 2011). Finally, if stakeholders can avoid the multi-stakeholder forum and still achieve their objectives (for example through bilateral

consultations with decision makers, or legal action) – if the multi-stakeholder process is not ‘the only game in town’, in other words – they will also be less motivated to take part (Ansell & Gash, 2008; Sigurdson, Stuart, & Bratty, 2011).

A successful multi-stakeholder process requires more from participants than simply showing up. It also depends on all participants (including government conveners) sharing information, engaging constructively in deliberations, and working in good faith to reach consensus positions; it depends on participants being committed to a collaborative process, meaning that they are not

(20)

only at the multi-stakeholder table to advocate for a particular position or ensure a specific outcome, or merely to fulfill an obligation to be there, but also because they believe that working collaboratively with other interested parties is the best way to achieve their objectives (Ansell & Gash, 2008; Arnold, Koro-Ljungberg, & Bartels, 2012). Without this shared commitment, a nominally collaborative process will be at best ineffective, and at worst could disempower those involved. “In any deliberative process, the risk also exists that more powerful interests may co-opt the less powerful … processes may produce outcomes that are neither fair nor efficient, and that reflect the values and interests of certain stakeholders more than others” (Schusler, Decker, & Pfeffer, 2003). Most people are willing to cooperate if they believe others will too, but nobody wants to be taken advantage of as the ‘sucker’ who cooperates when others do not (Ansell & Gash, 2008; Ostrom, 2000; Pomeroy, Mascia, & Pollnac, 2006; Putnam, 2001). To facilitate a genuinely collaborative process, advisory bodies often include guiding principles or codes of conduct that set out the expectations and responsibilities of those involved. For example, the Terms of Reference for the Race Rocks Public Advisory Board (a multi-stakeholder advisory body that will be looked at in detail in this study) call on board members to provide information openly; participate actively in discussions, and encourage contributions from other participants; offer respect for other viewpoints; “deal with differences as issues to be discussed, not positions to be defended;” and make a good faith effort to reach agreements (DFO, 2010, pp. 3–4). The literature indicates that it is best if ‘ground rules’ such as these are developed by participants themselves, and that independent facilitators be used if necessary to help ensure that they are understood and followed (Arnold et al., 2012; Gunton et al., 2010).

Prospective participants will be disinclined to get involved in any planning process, including a multi-stakeholder advisory body, if they do not believe the results are likely to justify the efforts required. If, on the other hand, “it is a credible process (that is, it has both integrity and a fair chance of producing results) and an open process (that is, the dialogue is both honest and receptive to different points of view), then people will invest the energy – the enormous expenditure of energy necessary to make collaboration succeed” (London, 1995, p. 11).

3.1.3 Trust and relationship building through and for successful collaboration

It has been argued that successful natural resource management is as much about managing human relationships as it is about managing natural systems (Berkes, 2009; Dedual et al., 2013;

(21)

Pinkerton, 1989), and according to Crona and Hubacek (2010, p. 1), “many attempts at

sustainable resource governance have failed because of inadequate attention to the role of social relationships in shaping environmental outcomes.” One reason to play closer attention to

relationships is that people work better together when they know and trust one another. This is commonly understood in the resource management literature in terms of social capital, which Huppé et al. (2012, p. 1) describe as “the fabric of trust, shared values and understanding that allows diverse participants to work together.” When social capital is high, people have confidence that their collaborative behaviour will be reciprocated (Bodin & Crona, 2009; Wondolleck & Yaffee, 2000; Young, King, & Schroeder, 2008). This has collective as well as individual value because it means that less time and effort needs to be spent judging whether others can be trusted to act in good faith, and more of both on actually working towards common goals (Andersson, 2004; Crona & Hubacek, 2010; Pretty & Smith, 2004; Putnam, 2001; Rudd, Tupper, Folmer, & Van Kooten, 2003). “Trust lubricates co-operation” (Pretty & Ward, 2001, p. 211). Conversely, when trust within a group is low, people will be more circumspect about working together, and may choose “unfettered private actions” over the risks or uncertainty of collaboration (Pretty & Ward, 2001, p. 211). A lack of trust can pose a significant obstacle to the success of collaborative arrangements (Pinkerton, 1999; Pretty & Ward, 2001).

Although MPAs are often intended to meet social as well as ecological goals, it is generally understood that conservation takes precedence when these goals conflict (Christie et al., 2003; Gardner, Bicego, Jessen, & Baker, 2008; MacKinnon et al., 2015). Some stakeholder activities, such as resource harvesting, are likely to be constrained or even prohibited by new MPA

regulations, therefore, making concern and opposition from some stakeholder groups – at least at the outset to a planning process – almost inevitable (Agardy et al., 2003; Bennett & Dearden, 2014; Gleason et al., 2013; Hedley & Willison, 2007; Pomeroy et al., 2004). Stakeholders often do not trust government agencies and officials to understand their concerns, or to work with them in good faith to address those concerns and implement fair, well-informed, and transparent decisions (Wondolleck & Yaffee, 2000). This could be based on negative past experiences with those agencies, a general disregard for government bureaucracy and regulations, and/or

misconceptions about the purpose of MPAs, which might impose fewer restrictions than stakeholders assume (Gardner et al., 2008; Hedley & Willison, 2007; Sayce et al., 2013;

(22)

stakeholders often do so “in a skeptical frame of mind … sensitive to issues of equity, concerned about the power of other stakeholders, and alive to the possibility of being manipulated” (Ansell & Gash, 2008, p. 15).

Distrust between government and First Nations can be a profound challenge for

implementing MPA collaboration. In the past, protected areas in Canada were created with little or no consultation with the First Nations occupants and owners of these territories (Ayers, Dearden, & Rollins, 2012; CPAWS, 2009; Gladu et al., 2003; Langdon, Prosper, & Gagnon, 2010; Murray & King, 2012). In some cases, First Nations communities were even forcibly removed from their lands to make way for parks, which was in line with both the prevailing Western view that people and protected areas should be kept apart, and with a broader colonial project of expropriation and attempted assimilation of indigenous peoples, which resulted in severe cultural, social, political, economic and health problems for these communities (Gladu et al., 2003). “Historically, Aboriginal Peoples have seen parks as, at best, an abstract European construct far removed from their own culture’s holistic view of land and place or, at worst, just another way of constraining Aboriginal and treaty rights and expropriating lands” (Gladu et al., 2003, p. 6). Although First Nations engagement is now a fundamental part of MPA planning and management, and in the terrestrial context First Nations are directly involved in the management of many of Canada’s national parks (Langdon et al., 2010), this very negative history has left a lasting “legacy of mistrust” that will take time to overcome (CPAWS, 2009, p. 23).

“There's a great deal of fear in indigenous communities right across the country in terms of working with crown governments because of the historical relationship,” Chief Steven Nitah of the Lutsel K'e Dene First Nation told Parliamentarians in 2016. “That fear is stunting any kind of ambition that indigenous communities may have in managing their lands using federal or

provincial legislation” (Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, 2017, p. 59). If cooperative MPA management is to have any chance of succeeding, First Nations need to be confident that government counterparts recognize and respect their rights, interests, and knowledge, and that MPAs will not cause them to be further alienated from their traditional territories or disempowered with respect to ongoing management decisions (CPAWS, 2009; Gardner, 2001). One challenge is that First Nations have ways of knowing and being with respect to their traditional territories that may not fit neatly within the scope of an MPA mandate or the preconceived models of collaborative decision making put forward by MPA proponents

(23)

(Moore, von der Porten, & Castleden, 2017). Another is that most cooperative management bodies do not (contrary to the understanding of some) transfer any legal authority to First Nations, but leave the final say over decisions to government ministers. Some critics have argued, therefore, that these arrangements simply perpetuate an unequal relationship and “normaliz[e] the Crown’s sovereign rule over stolen territories” (Youdelis, 2016, p. 1377). Drawing on Canadian and international examples of cooperative management in terrestrial and marine protected areas, however, Gardner (2001) concluded that the question of who holds the ultimate authority is relatively unimportant if the parties to a management agreement are

confident that that authority is not likely to be invoked unilaterally. This comes down to trust: “A central force in the success of cooperative management bodies seems to be the attitudes of those involved. Experience to date clearly shows that dedication, trust and commitment have been virtually as important as the type of model or structures used” (Gardner, 2001, p. 21).

Conflict or disagreement is not necessarily a bad thing if it can catalyze constructive dialogue and innovative problem solving. “Differences,” notes Gray (1989, p. 11) “are often the source of immense creative potential.” To tap into this potential, though, the individuals representing groups and organizations in conflict or competition need to be able to establish good personal relationships, especially if they are working in a context of low general (inter-organizational) trust, as will often be the case in the context of an MPA planning process. “Negative impressions need to be replaced with trust, which depends on the accumulation of positive experiences and cultivation of healthy relationships” (CPAWS, 2009, p. 65). Part of the enthusiasm for

collaborative planning processes (such as the multi-stakeholder bodies discussed in the previous section) comes from the expectation that, by providing a forum for inclusive deliberation and consensus seeking, they enable people with different perspectives, interests and objectives to learn from and about each other, “creating new relationships, building upon cooperative relationships, and transforming adversarial ones” (Schusler et al., 2003, p. 312). The literature offers numerous examples of trust being strengthened between stakeholders and government authorities as a result of meaningful engagement and participatory decision making (P. Jones et al., 2011a; Schusler et al., 2003; Wondolleck & Yaffee, 2000), and in Canada, DFO has claimed “new trust-based relationships” as an outcome of stakeholder consultations on MPAs (see Canada, 2000, p. 3367, 2005c, p. 2287, 2005a, p. 2273). However, stronger relationships are by no means guaranteed when agencies engage outside parties in MPA planning (Singleton, 2002;

(24)

Wagner & Fernandez-Gimenez, 2008), and whereas effective collaboration can lead to an “upward spiral of cooperation”, the opposite (a downward spiral caused by an erosion of trust) is also possible (P. Jones et al., 2011a, p. xvi). It is for this reason that this study’s third and final research question focuses on the importance of relationships as a necessary asset for effective collaboration, and on what can be learned from the two case studies about building strong relationships in an MPA planning context.

3.2 Theoretical framework

The preceding literature review provides a theoretical framework to guide the study, with the goal of understanding the extent to which federal MPAs in BC are established collaboratively, and what is required to overcome obstacles to successful collaboration. Highlighted were three elements of a successful collaborative approach to MPA planning and management. First are the governance structures and processes that are used to facilitate and promote inclusive and

meaningful involvement in decision-making. In this study I assume that processes that are more inclusive, and which afford participants more influence over decisions, are more ‘collaborative.’ Keeping in mind May’s (2006) point, though, that the role of stakeholders in decision making does not necessarily have to be understood in ideological (more is better) terms, and that expectations for inclusion will vary according to issues, interests, and other considerations, the intention of the first research question (Table 1) is to draw on the views of non-state actors themselves to identify any shortcomings in these arrangements. Of particular interest will be how the third criteria in Ansell and Gash’s (2008) definition of collaborative governance – that

participants engage directly in decision making – plays out in the two cases, since it is known that none of the governance structures in these cases give non-state actors a final say in decisions.

In addition to the formal structures and processes that make up a collaborative governance arrangement, the literature review highlighted two other elements that are necessary for effective collaboration, and that will, by the same token, be important to understanding obstacles to success and how they can be overcome. The first is that all parties – including, crucially,

government agencies themselves – have to want to work together, and have to believe that others do too. If agencies put in place a multi-stakeholder forum that does not align with the interests and expectations of outside parties, or in which the perceived benefits of participating are outweighed by the costs (or even risks) of doing so, the arrangement will be of little value; it

(25)

could, in fact, be counterproductive if it diminishes rather than strengthens confidence in the trustworthiness of lead agencies or other actor groups. Closely related to motivation and commitment, therefore, is the importance of trust-based relationships (and, by extension,

relationship building), which encourage and enable collaborative partners to work well together. Each of above the above elements will be the focus of one of the three empirical chapters in the dissertation (Table 1). Chapter 2 describes the structures and processes that were employed in Gwaii Haanas and Race Rocks to implement the collaborative approach the GoC has articulated; Chapter 3 investigates the interests and disincentives, or barriers, that alternately encourage or discourage participation in multi-stakeholder collaboration; and Chapter 4 addresses the importance of relationships and relationship building. As illustrated in Figure 3, none of these elements is independent of the others. For example, one of the positive outcomes of a

collaborative decision-making process should, if done well, be stronger relationships between those involved (A® C). Trust-based relationships will, in turn, give actors confidence that their cooperation will be reciprocated, and thereby enhance the motivation to take part in a

collaborative process (C ® B). All three elements are expected to feature in the results and discussions in each of the empirical chapters, therefore. Also illustrated in Figure 3 is the intended outcome of a successful collaborative process, namely well-informed, well-supported and, ideally, consensus-based decisions.3_{In an MPA context, these can include decisions about} the design of MPAs themselves (their conservation objectives, boundaries, regulations,

management plans, etc.) and, just as critically, about the governance arrangements for these protected areas once they are established. The extent to which consensus-based decisions are an outcome of the Gwaii Haanas and Race Rocks planning processes will be considered in all three of the empirical chapters.

Table 1 – Elements for successful collaboration, and corresponding research questions.

Element Research question

Structures / processes to promote and facilitate inclusive and meaningful involvement in decision-making.

In line with the collaborative approach articulated in policy and legislation, how were stakeholders, First Nations and government organizations included in decision making [at each site], and what were the key challenges or shortcomings identified by those involved? (Chapter 2).

3_{This study does not touch on the question of whether such decisions result in better social or ecological}

(26)

Motivating interests and shared commitments to a collaborative approach.

What are the interests that motivate participation in multi-stakeholder planning; and, conversely, what barriers or disincentivesmay

discourage it? (Chapter 3). Trust-based relationships and

opportunities for relationship building.

What is the role of interpersonal relationships in successful collaboration, and how can relationships be strengthened (or, conversely, weakened) through MPA planning? (Chapter 4).

Figure 3 – Interconnected elements for effective collaboration

4 Case study context: Federal MPAs and interest groups in Canada

Conservation tools have been employed in Canada’s oceans for decades, including fishery closures, National Parks with a marine component, and sub-national marine protected areas such as provincial Conservancies and Ecological Reserves (Canada, 2005b; Canada & British

Columbia, 2014; CPAWS, 2015). Federal MPAs are relatively new, though; the first site – the Endeavour Hydrothermal Vents, in BC – was only designated in 2003. It and nine other sites (the most recent was established in 2017) are administered by the Department of Fisheries and

(27)

Oceans (DFO) under the 1996 Oceans Act, which calls on DFO to establish a national system of MPAs with a focus on protecting marine species and their habitats (see Oceans Act, 1996, sec. 35). In addition, the Parks Canada Agency (which is also responsible for the country’s mostly-terrestrial National Parks system) has a mandate under the 2002 National Marine Conservation Areas Act to protect representative areas of Canada’s marine environment (NMCA Act, 2002). Finally, Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECC) is responsible for developing Marine Wildlife Areas under the 1985 Canada Wildlife Act, which are targeted at the protection of migratory birds and species at risk. Together, these three programs (Table 2) make up the core of Canada’s federal MPA system (CPAWS, 2015; Hedley & Willison, 2007). Sites designated under different legislation may also contribute to the system, providing they meet a set of eligibility criteria set out in the 2011 National Framework for Canada’s Network of Marine Protected Areas (see Canada, 2011 s, 5.2).

Table 2 – The three core programs of Canada’s Federal MPA system Protected area

designation

Conservation focus Legislation Lead agency Existing sites (2017) Marine Protected

Area (MPA) Important fish and marine mammal habitats, endangered marine species, unique features, and areas of high

biological productivity or biodiversity.

Oceans Act

(1996) Fisheries and Oceans 10 + 3 in progress or proposed National Marine Conservation Area (NMCA) Representative examples of Canada’s natural and cultural marine heritage; opportunities for public education and enjoyment.

NMCA Act (2002) Parks Canada Agency 4 + 3 in progress or proposed Marine Wildlife

Area (MWA) Habitat for a variety of wildlife including migratory birds and endangered species. Canada Wildlife Act (1985) Environment Canada (Canadian Wildlife Service) 0 + 1 in progress

(Sources: Canada, 2005b; DFO, 2015a; ECC, 2013; Parks Canada, 2013).

With seven years being the average time required to designate an Oceans Act MPA, and twenty years for NMCAs (Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, 2017), Canada has created just 12 federal MPAs since 2002 – ten Oceans Act MPAs and two

(28)

NMCAs. Together with two existing sites that were added to the NMCA system retroactively, these represent approximately 1% of Canada’s territorial waters – one tenth of the 2020 target, or a shortfall of some 520,000 km2_{(Canada, 2016; CPAWS, 2015; House of Commons Standing}

Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, 2016) (Figure 1). In 2012, Canada’s Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development spelled out the lack of progress:

“It has been 20 years since Canada ratified the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity4_{and 15 years since it committed to leading and coordinating the development} and implementation of a national network of marine protected areas under the Oceans Act. Yet there is no national network of marine protected areas. … At the current rate of progress, it will take many decades for Canada to establish a fully functioning MPA network” (Office of the Auditor General, 2012, p. 3).

Figure 4 – Canada’s progress towards 2020 MPA target

(Source: CPAWS, 2008, 2011, 2013, 2015)

4_{At the Convention Canada and over 190 other countries “committed to establishing a system of protected areas}

(29)

Even as government agencies work to meet the 2020 target – a mandate that a senior official in Canada recently described as ‘terrifying’ for the acceleration in MPA designations it implies (Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, 2016a) – they must also meet their commitment to plan and manage these sites in collaboration with all interested parties. Broadly, there are three key groups that need to be included in the design and implementation of MPAs in Canada: Aboriginal communities and governments (First Nations in BC)5_{; other government agencies} with oceans-related responsibilities; and resource users and other stakeholder groups. A brief introduction to each group is given here.

The 2004 Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) decision in Haida v. British Columbia established that, even in the absence of legal title or final treaty settlements, the Crown has a duty to consult Aboriginal people on proposed activities that could affect their interests, and to accommodate those interests when appropriate (one possible means of accommodation in the context of protected areas is the establishment of cooperative management arrangements) (CPAWS, 2009; Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), 2004; von der Porten et al., 2016). Aboriginal peoples are not ‘stakeholders’ akin to non-Aboriginal resource users and other interest groups. They have Constitutionally-guaranteed rights with respect to their traditional territories6_{, and are increasingly recognized as an order of government with collective rights to} self-determination and decision-making authority within their territories (CPAWS, 2009; von der Porten et al., 2016; Weitzner & Manseau, 2001). Ensuring that these rights are understood and respected is a key issue for First Nations when contemplating whether or not to support and participate in MPAs (Gardner, 2001). MPAs have the potential to benefit local First Nations in a number of ways, for example by maintaining ecological integrity within their traditional

territories; preventing unsustainable resource harvesting while allowing for the continuation of traditional uses (e.g., fishing for food, social and ceremonial (FSC) purposes); creating new opportunities for employment and economic development (for example in eco-tourism and related industries); and by enhancing public understanding of First Nations culture and rights

5_{As the descendants of the original inhabitants of North America, Canada’s 1982 Constitution Act recognizes}

three groups of Aboriginal people – Indians (First Nations), Métis, and Inuit (INAC, 2004). Aboriginal peoples in British Columbia are known as First Nations, and will be referred to as such in this dissertation unless a reference to the legal / general term ‘Aboriginal’ is required.

6_{Section 35(1) of the 1982 Constitution Act states that “The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the}

(30)

(CPAWS, 2009; Gardner et al., 2008; Gladu et al., 2003). As noted above, however, past experiences with protected areas have in many cases been very negative, and First Nations see threats as well as opportunities in proposed MPAs (Ayers et al., 2012; CPAWS, 2009; Gardner et al., 2008). Three related concerns are that MPAs will impose restrictions on First Nations access to marine resources, particularly when they include no-take zones that are intended to prohibit all resource harvesting; that cooperative management arrangements will, due to their advisory-only status, diminish rather than strengthen their authority for managing these areas; and, for those First Nations that are engaged in comprehensive treaty negotiations, prejudice the outcome of these negotiations by reducing the lands / waters that the government considers ‘on the table’ for First Nations ownership (Ayers et al., 2012; CPAWS, 2009; Gardner, 2001). The Government of BC committed in 2005 to a ‘New Relationship’ with its First Nations peoples, grounded in government-to-government relationships and shared decision-making (British Columbia, 2005), and the Minister of DFO recently affirmed that the federal government, likewise, is “absolutely committed to a renewed nation to nation relationship with Canada's Indigenous peoples” (DFO, 2015c). First Nations expect to see these commitments reflected in MPAs and MPA governance arrangements that reflect and advance their rights and interests.

Meanwhile, MPA agencies must work closely with a potentially large number of other government departments when designating and managing MPAs, and do so in a way that respects their existing jurisdictions and authorities. In Canada there may be as many as three levels of government – federal, provincial or territorial, and municipal – with authority within the boundaries of an MPA (in addition to First Nations), and it would be difficult (as well as

potentially meaningless) for lead agencies to establish a protected area without their support and involvement. Even at the federal level, where all branches (Ministries) are theoretically

committed to supporting GoC policies, there is no guarantee that this support will be

forthcoming without a concerted effort on the part of MPA officials to raise awareness and build bridges. The dynamic nature of the marine environment means that, even more so than terrestrial protected areas, all MPAs are vulnerable to conditions and activities that occur beyond their boundaries (P. Jones et al., 2011a). Lead agencies do not have the statutory authorities,

resources, or expertise to manage these activities singlehandedly, and even within the boundaries of an MPA, overlapping oceans jurisdictions may mean that they cannot regulate all of the activities that take place there. Writing in the Canadian context, VanderZwaag and Macnab

(31)

(2011, p. 20) note that “a major difference between marine and terrestrial protected areas lies in the singular management authority typical on land and the multiplicity of authorities common in oceans.” This is particularly true in inland waters, where the land and seabed – integral parts of marine ecosystems – are owned by the provincial rather than federal crown (Alley & Topelko, 2007; Doherty & Duggan, 2007). “The bottom line is that if we truly want to progress as a country we must recognize the critical need to work together, especially among government agencies,” said the Minister of DFO in 1998 (Anderson, 1998). This has proven difficult, though. An acknowledgement in the 2005 Federal MPA strategy that cooperation has “not always been consistent” (Canada, 2005b, p. 7) understates the challenge of improving cooperation between departments that are accustomed to “jealously protecting their turf” (Jessen, 2011, p. 25).

Finally, lead agencies must engage a diverse group of resource users and other stakeholders in the MPA planning process (Canada, 2005b, 2011; Canada & British Columbia, 2014). This will include local communities; business operators and industry groups in industries such as tourism, aquaculture, and commercial and recreational fishing; environmental and other non-governmental groups (NGOs); and academic and educational organizations. One difference between the two cases in this study is that the fishing industry, which tends to be “deeply suspicious” of MPAs and can be highly influential in the success or failure of MPA proposals (Gardner et al., 2008, p. 85), is a major stakeholder group in Gwaii Haanas but not Race Rocks (which has been closed to commercial and recreational fishing since the 1990s). Stakeholder groups do not have the statutory authorities of federal and provincial governments, nor the traditional and constitutional rights of First Nations. Whereas the Canada-BC MPA Network Strategy, which was released in 2014, calls for “collaborative decision making” between governments and with First Nations, therefore, the commitment to stakeholders is for

“meaningful opportunities for participation, consultation and information exchange” – a notable distinction (Canada & British Columbia, 2014, p. 1). Even if they are not to have a final say in decisions, though, stakeholders do expect credible opportunities to share their ideas and express their views and concerns, and MPA agencies have made it clear that public involvement is integral to the success of the MPA program (Canada, 2005b; DFO, 2009b; Parks Canada, 2008). Indeed, MPAs cannot succeed without broad – and particularly local – support, and two MPA designation processes have failed in Canada thus far because this support was lacking (Leading

(32)

Tickles in Newfoundland and Labrador, and Gabriola Passage in BC) (Gardner et al., 2008; Guénette & Alder, 2007; Jessen, 2011).”

5 Research Process

The research process consisted of the following stages: (1) Definition of research objectives; (2) Selection of case studies; (3) Recruitment process and study respondents; (4) Data collection; and (5) Data analysis.

5.1 Definition of research objectives

From the literature review summarized above, a set of preliminary research questions and objectives was drafted. These were presented in meetings or by phone with key informants (some of whom were later recruited to participate in the study), including seven federal and provincial government officials, two researchers studying MPA processes elsewhere in the country, a non-government marine planner employed by coastal First Nations, and two stakeholder representatives with collaborative MPA planning experience. The research ideas were also presented to the members of the Race Rocks Public Advisory Board – subsequently one of the main subjects of the study – at that group’s final meeting in March, 2011. The feedback from these conversations confirmed that there was a strong interest in making collaborative planning for MPAs (and marine management generally) work better in the

province, and helped to refine the questions and select the case studies. The recruitment process began in Spring 2012, and data collection took place between August 2012 and August 2013. During this time I used a combination of methods and data sources to address the research question and objectives (Olsen, 2012).

5.2 Case study approach and site selection

A case study approach was chosen in order to look beyond articulations of collaboration in statutes, policy guidelines, governance agreements, etc., to how collaborative planning actually occurred in specific examples, and how it was perceived by those involved. The value of case studies is in their power to explain unique and complex situations in detail. Though this does not allow for conclusive statements to be made about other cases, it does enable researchers to shed light on those that share some of the same features (Bryne & Ragin, 2009; P. Jones et al., 2011a; Mascia, Claus, & Naidoo, 2010). Concentrating on collaboration at the MPA-site level also brings a number of topics into focus. It is here that MPA officials need to engage with those who

(33)

will be directly affected by management decisions; and it is at this level that local resource users and other stakeholders can play a substantive and ongoing role in decision-making. It is also here that we see how a collaborative approach is put into practice at the site level, where actual

regulations must be designed, implemented, and complied with. Finally, when it comes to discussing a specific MPA, there may be opportunities for actors to explore and advance shared interests in more tangible ways than is possible at scales where bigger-picture issues (and disagreements) are more likely to prevail.

In order to undertake an investigation of collaborative MPA planning that was both in-depth and comparative, two sites were sought for inclusion in the study. Gwaii Haanas and Race Rocks were selected for a number of reasons. While both are (or will be) part of Canada’s federal MPA program, they are designated under different legislation, by different agencies, and for different purposes (see Table 2, above). Administered by Parks Canada, the Gwaii Haanas National Marine Conservation Area Reserve is the first protected area to be designated under Canada’s 2002 NMCA Act. It was preceded by the Gwaii Haanas Haida Heritage Site (which was designated by the Council of the Haida Nation in 1985), and Gwaii Haanas National Park Reserve (designated by the GoC in 1996). As an NMCA, it was created “for the purpose of protecting and conserving representative marine areas for the benefit, education and enjoyment of the people of Canada and the world” (NMCA Act, 2002, sec. 4.1). Established in 2010 following an approximately two-year public planning process, Gwaii Haanas is currently one of four NMCA sites across the country, and the only one in BC (a second NMCA in BC – the Southern Strait of Georgia – has been proposed and the planning process is ongoing). Race Rocks, on the other hand, is a proposed Oceans Act MPA. In comparison to NMCAs, Oceans Act MPAs have a narrower mandate (public education and enjoyment are not stipulations of the Oceans Act) focused on the protection of fish and marine mammal habitat (Oceans Act, 1996, sec. 35.1). Administered by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), there are three existing Oceans Act MPAs in BC and 10 across the country (the most recent – Hecate Strait and Queen Charlotte Sound MPA – was designated in 2017). Although Race Rocks was one of the earliest candidate sites for the MPA program, however, and has been the subject of not one but two public planning processes since 1998, it has yet to be designated.

Making collaboration work: an evaluation of marine protected area planning processes on Canada’s Pacific Coast

Supervisory Committee

Abstract

Table of Contents

List of Tables

List of Figures

Abbreviations

Chapter 1

Introduction